Archive for the ‘war’ Category

Paternity, war and conquest.

Tuesday, October 2nd, 2018

Competition with no limits and no rules is the war of all against all, is predation, every other creature except for close kin being obstacles or raw materials. Humans organize so that competition is channeled into productive activities, rather than massively negative sum activities. But how do we organize this? This is what we call order, and political order is also order in the thermodynamic sense, in that a functional state of the social system, where competition produces excellence through cooperation is a very special case, and any random change is apt to be for the worse.

Where does this organization come from. Where does order come from?

Partly it comes from a ruler, but for a ruler to actually remake society, he has to have remarkably great power, which is apt to result in competition to be the ruler getting out of hand, as it did in the Roman Empire. In substantial part it comes from natural selection of social orders. A society where people cooperate effectively is apt to conquer and dominate other societies, much as a group of humans can predate upon a herd of cattle. Thus, for example, colonialism, outsiders come in, inject themselves at the top of the colonialized society’s social order, and remake that society in their own image, not necessarily killing all the men and enslaving all the women, quite likely creating greater prosperity and freedom for everyone, but rather more prosperity and freedom for themselves.

The better a society is at creating prosperity through orderly and productive competition, the more likely it is that its dominion is rather more civilized than killing all the men of the conquered society and taking their land and women. But there needs to be some substantial payoff for those imposing order. If no substantial payoff, drift to entropy is inevitable.

The population size estimated from Y chromosome diversity is smaller than the population size estimated from mitochondrial diversity, indicating that far more females than males reproduce – we are de-facto a substantially polygynous species.

About seven thousand years ago, during the transition from hunting and gathering to agriculture, this ratio went to extremes.

One possible explanation of this is that the local ruler owned all the land and owned all the women, thus only one male in seventeen got to reproduce. Another possible explanation is that women got to choose, and they chose one male in seventeen. But the bottleneck happened during the transition between hunter gathering and farming, hence connected to property rights and property rights enforcement, thus property rights enforcement in land, crops, cattle, and women.

Only the local ruler reproducing is unlikely to be stable. The other males will not fight for him. Thus a patrilineal group cooperating and fighting to enforce its property rights in cattle and women, as depicted in the book of Genesis. Genesis depicts Abraham’s patriarchal group warring with Kings with reasonable success. Books later in the series depict patriarchal groups helpless before Kings and armed religions.

The bottleneck can be explained by competition between patrilineal groups, so that the survival of one man’s Y chromosome is highly correlated with the survival of his kin in the paternal line, where one patrilineal group was apt to wipe out another patrilineal group and take their women. If you were a descendant of Genghis in the male line, you and all the other descendants of Genghis in the male line would work together to take the other men’s women and prevent other men from taking your women – which implies and presupposes that women got no say in this.

During the transition, need property rights in land, crops, and cattle.

Father’s brother’s daughter marriage ensures social cohesion on Y chromosome lines. Abraham’s property rights in cattle are secured by kinship relationships with people who share his Y chromosome.

Later, Kings matter more, patrilineal kin matter less, but if everyone secured property rights the way Abraham did, there would be a high correlation between Y chromosomes and reproductive success. Own stuff, have the same Y chromosome as other people owning stuff. Don’t own stuff, don’t reproduce.

In the book of Genesis, we see a bunch of wars in which patrilineal kinship groups fight kings as roughly equals. This environment could mean a much smaller effective population size for Y chromosome, since the population size would be number of property owning patrilineal groups, not number of individual males.

This does not necessarily manifest as outright conquest and abduction – just that you can feed women, and the guy without property rights cannot, and you can enforce your property right in women, and thus you want to feed your women and their children.

If enforcement comes from patrilineal groups, including enforcement of marriage, then a moderate disparity in willingness and ability to enforce property rights in women and children can result in a very large disparity in effective population size, because we are measuring not the number of successfully reproducing males compared to the number of successfully reproducing women, but the number of successfully reproducing patrilineal property rights enforcement groups compare to the number of successfully reproducing women.

Of course, we are still talking war between patrilineal groups but the war may fall short of killing all the men and taking all the women in one hit. But if a patrilineal group cannot defend its land and women, it is going to eradicated, possibly in a less sudden fashion.

The point is that one gets a reduction in effective male population size if genetic survival is correlated with one’s Y chromosome. Everyone you know is descended in the male line from your great great granddad. And if he is not, no one is stopping you from taking his cattle and his women, and killing any children encumbering those women. But this implies that you know who everyone’s dad is, which implies female sexuality is under male control – as depicted in the old testament in the time of patriarchs, where the penalty for consensual sex was death.

This does not necessarily mean that one night patrilineal clan A attacks, and in the morning the Y chromosome of patrilineal clan B is no more, but that is the net effect over time, meaning still fairly brutal.

For the model to work, a major unit of selection has to be the clan, with the men of clan B being eradicated, all of them, and the women of clan B being taken into clan A, which is what we expect to happen if cooperation is mediated through patrilineal relationships, and not matrilineal relationships, which implies women being hauled away, and males controlling their sexual choices.

For the model to work, your brothers in the male line and your cousins in the male line have to support your capability to reproduce, which requires that they restrain your women from screwing other men. Thus, patriarchy, and patrilocality. Patrilocality means you maintain your connection with your brothers and cousins in the male line, and if your sister is married or stolen outside of your male line, you lose your connection with her, and patriarchy means that the enforcement system for property also enforces marriage – thus your women are your property like your cattle, thus everyone knows who is someone’s father. You stick up for male kin’s property rights.

Exodus happens around the time of the collapse of bronze age civilization, 1200BC to 1150BC, therefore Abraham’s kin group contending successfully with kings have to be around 2000BC or so, which puts them well after the bottleneck, but they could well be a survival, a leftover, of the bottleneck social order. The bottleneck lasted from around 5000 BC to 3000BC. Abraham has to be around a thousand years after the bottleneck, but some remnants of the bottleneck social order are still going strong today, in that we still have societies where patrilineal groups are important in protecting property rights in women and cattle. America’s defeat in Somalia was patrilineal kin groups contending successfully with modern day sovereigns equipped with cruise missiles and attack helicopters five thousand years after the bottleneck, so it is plausible that Abraham and his kin could have successfully contended with Kings a thousand years after the bottleneck.

It looks as if the white race originated ten thousand years ago and four thousand years ago, in waves of near genocidal conquest by early whites. About eleven thousand years ago, neolithic grain growing middle eastern farmers, with light brown skins, dark hair, and brown eyes, who largely ate bread, porridge, and drank beer, conquered Europe, completely genociding the paleolithic brown skinned, but blue eyed, European hunter gatherers, who retreated before them towards Asia into more severe climate of Russia. As the middle easterners penetrated into harsher climates, they entered an environment less favorable for grain growing, and more favorable for cattle herding, and the paleolithic hunter gatherers retreating before them were no longer hunter gatherers, but cattle ranchers, so the conflict became more equal. The two races exchanged hostages, as recorded in the sagas, and interbred. Hybridization and subsequent selection produced higher IQ fair skinned people with mixed eye and hair colors, the ancestors of modern whites, who herded cattle, and lived on milk, meat, butter, and cheese. These people invented bronze and in due course, war chariots drawn by small horses, and conquered the farmers of Europe, killing the men and enslaving the women in another wave of hybridization, producing a race that largely ate bread, butter, and beer, who subsequently produced bronze age civilization.

But about twelve hundred years before Christ something went horribly wrong. Bronze age civilization collapsed and depopulated, and white pastoralists once again conquered, but this time, were conquering lands that had largely been abandoned – a functional society returned, because a dysfunctional society largely failed to reproduce. The switch from bronze to iron seems to have been forced by the collapse of long distance trade. Iron could be produced from local sources, but bronze required that people mine tin in one place, and copper in a very distant place, so that people were forced to find a technological solution to replace long distance cooperation, much as today the corporate form is collapsing, and we seek to replace the corporation with the block chain.

So it is non trivial to produce a society where competition leads to cooperation rather than destruction. Magic dirt does not do it, and high IQ does not in itself do it. A society where competition is productive rather than destructive is highly ordered and that order is the product both of selection and of conscious will.

The last days of bronze age civilization were socialist in the sense that the Egypt described in the bible was socialist, and socialist in the sense that Ithaca described by Homer was socialist. Archaeology indicates trade was centralized in the palace. Internationally traded goods and intertemporally traded goods, like the wheat that Joseph advised the Pharaoh to horde, were managed by kings, and distributed through the palace, as indicated by the archaeology of the Minoan civilization, indicating that private property rights were not secure. Similarly, we record Abraham pretending that his wife was his sister – thus property rights in women were insecure. And then, in the Ithaca recorded by Homer, and the Egypt recorded by Ipuwer, the property rights of the King also became insecure – people failed to reproduce due to the sexual immorality recorded by Ipuwer, and the fields lay unplanted, because he who sowed was unlikely to reap.

The decadent settled people of the bronze age vanished, and were largely replaced by severely patriarchal pastoralists – pastoralists who condemned coveting, and respected private property and marriage – thus prohibiting the most obvious forms of destructive competition.

In the ten commandments we see the conscious design of a social order by a ruler with kingly and theocratic power. The emphasis on prohibiting coveting suggest that Moses perceived the social breakdown and collapse of Egypt as a result of insecurity of marriage and property, but he was building on or reviving the social order of the patriarch Israel, or claimed to be doing so, which reflects the natural selection of social orders, since descendants of Israel had, overall, reproductive and military success – and it was this military capability that preserved their way of life against Egyptian attempts to multicult them, to assimilate their social order to the dysfunctional Egyptian social order.

There are four religious commandments concerning worship, which have the effect of making those obeying the commandments visible to others who obey the commandments, and ensuring that people who obey these commandments tend to associate with people who obey these commandments, since they were all required to take their rest day at the same time, and six commandments concerning how men shall deal with men, which have the effect of ensuring that competition for women and goods does not take destructive forms.

These latter six rules were generally obeyed by successful societies until recent times, but leftist redistribution of goods and emancipation of women now results in competition for women and goods being political, making it difficult to produce wealth or reproduce. Coveting, rather than being forbidden, has become a sacrament, and adultery a human right. Recollect how Starbucks was recently memed into providing black people with a free home and office.

If two men agree to exchange wheat and iron, the exchange must make both of them better off or else they would not agree to it, and is unlikely to have significant externalities, but if a woman decides to have sex with a man, the decision is always deeply irrational, an eruption of volcanic forces that she does not comprehend and is scarcely aware of, and the decision is apt to have enormous externalities, harming her actual and potential children, her parents and siblings, and her present or future husband. But we regulate the hell out of two men exchanging wheat and iron, while horrifyingly wicked and self destructive sexual choices are an absolutely inalienable human right.

As is the murder of unborn children. Currently we have a system were the unborn are treated as non people in relation to women, and as people in relation to fathers and taxpayers.

If we suppose that the unborn should be treated as non people, then it makes no sense that the tax payer or the reluctant father should provide child support. Bastards should be killed or enslaved.

If, on the other hand, the unborn should be treated as people, then the mother should be compelled submit to the father, to be always sexually available to him and never to any other, and the father should be compelled to support, protect, supervise, and guide the mother and the child, and to always be sexually available to the mother.

An inalienable right of women, but not men, to murder children is made necessary by the inalienable right of women to have sex or refrain from having sex with whoever they choose, whenever they choose, because their choices are apt to be so disastrous as to produce problem children.

Leftism and female emancipation is coveting and adultery, and leads to destructive competition over goods and women. Adultery is not a code word for sex. It means much the same thing in female pussies as in beer.

Another important virtue, not covered in the old testament, is truth telling, which was, in the England of the restoration, an aristocratic and noble virtue thinly disguised as a Christian virtue, though it was never a Christian virtue. The Gentleman was independent of and resistant to social pressure to go along with the false consensus. The gentleman could be relied on to speak the truth because of his independence. This ideal of gentlemanly independence is the opposite of peer review, which produces truth by consensus behind closed doors. Peer Review has produced the replication crisis, where no one can trust other people’s data, and it was predictable that it would, since the social dynamics of consensus behind closed doors is to produce official truth unrelated to empirical truth, which by imperceptibly small degrees gradually becomes outright fraud, as unwanted data is “corrected” to fit the social consensus.

Peer review is bringing back the demon haunted dark. The demon haunted dark closes in upon us, shutting down nuclear power, forbidding fracking, superstitiously terrified of dangerous compounds at one thousandth their harmful levels. Peer Review needs to be condemned as vile, disgusting, and unclean, akin to adultery, for the social dynamics of peer review inevitably lead to lies being enforced, and truth being demonized. Peer review on empirical questions and empirical data is like wallowing in shit, you get exposed to memetic diseases. It is the memetic equivalent of gays in a bathhouse having sex in a great big pile. As sex in the bathhouse in a great big pile spreads biological diseases, peer review spreads memetic diseases. The lies fester and multiply behind closed doors.

The requirements of a functional social order are well known, narrow, and precise – and installing them means enforcing a moral code, requiring all in positions of status and power to affirm this moral code, and demolishing the status of anyone challenging this moral code by treating them as if they were stray dogs attacking your chickens, which moral code necessarily condemns leftism as inherently sinful.

Everyone should learn about the crimes of the twentieth century, and be taught that they were caused by coveting, as today they are taught that they were caused by racism.

It has been done in the past. It can be done again. That is the planning and conscious will aspect. If one society in one place manages it, and manages to keep to it, it will in due course colonialize all others, or massacre the menfolk of all others and enslave their women, or just eradicate all others completely. That is the natural selection of societies aspect. The social order of the patriarch Israel, with private property rights in cattle and women, was favored by natural selection, and consciously re-created by Moses in a deliberate act of political will, political violence, and divine revelation.

The reactionary program for the coming civil war

Thursday, August 9th, 2018

The reactionary program is fallen governance for a fallen world: Immanentizing the Eschaton is the progressive program, it is the opposite of the reactionary program. Whosoever claims that the truest and most pure reaction will Immanentize the Eschaton is a progressive entryist, like those telling Muslims that Islam is the religion of peace, therefore the truest Islam is something that is suspiciously progressive sounding, like those telling Christians that single mothers are heroes, and that they should adopt blacks from Saharan Africa.

“hello fellow white male hetero sexual reactionaries. My reaction is purer than your reaction. And yet at the same time we need to be acceptable to moderates in order to obtain the broadest possible outreach.”

Reaction deals with fallen men as they actually are – hence we want our ruling bandit to be a stationary bandit evil overlord, and view the primary problem with government as mobile banditry – that anonymous bureaucrats have, as Taleb says, no stake in the game. We are worried about the evil overlord’s incentives, and not much worried about whether he represents the people, and not much worried whether he is nice and virtuous. We want a good man for Archbishop, but someone mighty like Trump for President, President for Life, King, God King, and Holy American Emperor.

If Trump successfully does a Stalin or a Cromwell, freezes leftism at the current year, that will be great, for the full implementation of the reactionary program is likely to be through all out war, where cities get burned, likely by nuclear fire, women and children get massacred, and the winning side is the side most willing to do the most terrible things.

If he does a Sulla, and rolls leftism back to 1933 that will be even better.

If he rolls leftism back to the leftism of the founders, better still. Best of all if he gets crowned God Emperor of the New Holy American empire, does a Charles the Hammer and a Charles the Second and rolls things back to 1660, in which case we are likely to get one hundred and sixty years of reaction.

The worst case outcome however, and a very likely outcome, is long, bloody, and terrible civil war with our enemies masters of the state. Trump gets impeached, not long after that imprisoned, and not long after that he and his entire family is murdered like the Romanovs as civil war and white genocide begins. In which case we will have to whip up our own state in one hell of a hurry.

  • Everyone who practices with a gun on the gun range is on our side.
  • Most men who lift iron are on our side.
  • Most men who practice the seriously dangerous martial arts on our side.
  • The great majority of young white males are our side.
  • Deus Vult. God is on our side.

But as well as that, if our enemies have a state, we will need a state.

Whites are in line for hot genocide. Whites also have more capability for war than any other race. No other race, no other people, have ever shown anything close to the capacity for organized mass violence. Which means that to re-awaken our capability, we need organization and mass.

To re-awaken the sleeping warrior, reward him for victory personally and individually with land, women and power, as well as with land and power for his platoon, his company, and his regiment. He will be back.

Set the status of women back to what it was in eighteenth century England, or better, back to what it was in the Carolingian empire. He will be back.

If the state remains in the hands of people who wish to destroy us, we will have to build our own state, and the quickest way to whip up a state from nothing much is feudalism and freehold – the full reactionary program. Every company and every regiment needs to be largely responsible for its own logistics, and will need its own pool of camp followers, thus will need its own domain of state power.

It would be better if part of the existing state comes over to us, with its existing institutions, in which case we will get something considerably less than the full reactionary program, very likely will get a Cromwellian program. We are not in this to build utopia. Reaction is impure in its essence, being committed to doing the best we can in a regrettably fallen world. The Cromwellian program would be great. Whosoever signals reactionary purity, signals leftism. We are, however, in this to win. If we cannot win with the existing state, or a breakaway part of it, will have to win without, and the full reactionary program is fully optimized for power, war, and the regrettable necessity of dreadful deeds.

The wonderful clarity of white genocide

Monday, August 6th, 2018

Sarah Jeong issued, over many years, an enormous pile of tweets expressing hatred of white people, and among those tweets a few expressing intent to murder all white people.

Naturally she was appointed to the editorial board of the New York Times.

Needless to say this appointment has been stoutly defended by every goodthinking leftist, though I see some white male leftists showing symptoms of mental breakdown, their mask of sanity slipping.

Interestingly, some conservative commentators have also rushed to the defense of Sarah Jeong, their arguments inevitably sliding into implicit advocacy of white genocide. What characteristic do all these conservatives have in common?

‘Tis a mystery. </sarcasm>

“The Cathedral” accurately depicts our enemies as the centralized and authoritarian movement that they in fact are.

The puritan hypothesis depicts them as the pharisaical holier than thou religious fanatics that they are in fact are, which account is more concisely expressed as “Social Justice Warrior”.

All men are supposedly created equal. Observed inequality must, therefore, be the result of “hate”. Evil noticers are supposedly causing the underperformance that they notice. Thus, war on noticing. Since underperformance continues, the punishment of whites and males must be endlessly escalated. Endless escalation of punishment must eventually manifest as ethnic cleansing and genocide.

I see white non Jewish social justice warriors getting crazier, as trapped in their own logic, they are reasoning their way to their own destruction. Jewish social justice warriors tend more to evil and less to madness, though, like Scott, male Jews are apt reason their way to self destruction to punish themselves for their maleness, while enthusiastically supporting the destruction of non Jewish whites without ensuing mental disorder. So male Jews tend to be driven to madness by their maleness, while non Jewish social justice warriors are driven to madness both by their maleness and by their whiteness.

Since the focus is now on the extermination of whites, rather than the emasculation of males, the Jewish Question is becoming more true, and the Puritan hypothesis less relevant. But we still have plenty of action on the emasculation of males, for which thinking too much about the Jewish question is apt to mislead and confuse.

When World War T was winding down, we wondered what the next big cause for leftism would be. I was thinking that maybe they would come out with some brilliantly clever reasons why castrating nine year old boys and turning them into sex toys for gays was liberating, but men having sex with seventeen year old girls was worse than the holocaust, and we have been seeing some of that. Very young boys are being liberated from being oppressed by their horrid their toxic male identity. But it has not really received power support.

With the Francisco Sanchez acquitted because he shot Kathryn Steinle on the Embarcadero for being white, and Sarah Jeong being appointed to the editorial board of the New York Times, it is clear what the next big left wing cause will be.

The next big leftwing cause is killing all white people.

It is not like they appointed some fifty year old fat gay who recently emancipated his recently adopted nine year old boy child from toxic masculinity, which is what I was half expecting.

I am seeing a whole lot of schizophrenia among white progressives. They know this, and they do not know it. They support it, and they do not support it. Massive doublethink and split personality.

It is interesting how completely normal and mainstream the advocacy of white genocide feels. They are telling us that we must be hateful, evil, and crazy to disagree.

In the George Zimmerman Trayvon Martin case, it was obvious that those who supported Trayvon were advocating genocide, but they could plausibly deny it, deny it to themselves, because, after all, Zimmerman deliberately shot Trayvon through the heart when Trayvon attacked him, while Trayvon was merely indifferent as to whether he was endangering Zimmerman’s life by his attack on Zimmerman. Zimmerman aimed for the heart, and knew his shot was true.

But with everyone who defends and supports Sarah Jeong, there is no real ambiguity. They want to kill us all. If they are going to come up with some motte and bailey argument “we are not actually advocating white genocide, we are actually advocating …”, what is the motte? If they are not advocating white genocide, what are they advocating?

During the Trayvon case, I would point out to a Trayvon supporter that she (and it was usually a white woman) was advocating white genocide, in that though she was supposedly arguing that Zimmerman attacked Trayvon, she was actually presenting arguments that Trayvon was right to attack Zimmerman. And often she would realize that she was arguing that, and respond “Well, yes, but Zimmerman could have solved the problem without lethal force” (The implicit assumption not being that white people need killing, but rather being that white people are not only expected to behave well, but use their super magic powers to prevent other races from behaving badly, and if other races behave badly, it is the fault of white males.)

OK, so what is the motte in the Sarah Jeong case? When you advocate the eradication of white people, not a lot of ambiguity remaining. When you support someone who advocates the eradication of white people, not a lot of ambiguity remaining.

Heartiste accurately analyzes those that hate us, and intend to exterminate us

Anti-White hatred is channeled through Trump, which explains why the rage against Trump is so unhinged.

Democracy is going to kill us all. People inevitably vote their tribe and their religion, which inevitably tends towards tribal warfare and holy war. The Democrats brought in hostile tribes for a vote bank, as the Populares allied with the Samnites against the Optimates. Of course the Samnites did not care about the differences between Populares and Optimates. They intended to level Rome and kill all Romans, Populares and Optimates both. And now the Democrats have a brown problem, as the Populares had a Samnite problem.

For us to survive, Democracy and the Constitution has got to go, and the Declaration of Independence needs to be taught in schools as treason against the King motivated by religious fanaticism. There is no middle course that ends with us alive. While the Jewish role in the promotion of genocide is obvious, they are simultaneously becoming irrelevant as their pets push them aside. Just as the Jewish question becomes more relevant, it renders itself irrelevant as the processes they set in motion escalate beyond their control. To focus unduly on the Jewish Question is to suppose that we can solve this problem while retaining Democracy, the Constitution, and the Declaration of independence. The Jewish role in advocacy of white genocide is obvious, but if you focus unduly on Jews, you think you can set things back to yesterday’s leftism, back to 1933 leftism. The course we are on was not set by Jews, but by the founders. If all men are created equal, then it follows that I must be causing the problems encountered by black military age Muslims in Subsaharan Africa, in which case they all are entitled to claim asylum and come here to live on crime, welfare, and voting Democrat, a conclusion that, however congenial to Jews and Democrats, logically follows from the Declaration of Independence. And even if we gassed every Jew, still a conclusion highly congenial to the representatives of fifty percent of the voters. We cannot afford the Declaration, and we cannot afford one man one vote, Jews or no Jews.

The murder of the Czar and his family

Monday, July 16th, 2018

A hundred years ago the Czar and his family were murdered, which murder foreshadowed and led to the murder of huge numbers of ordinary people.

Progressives, including supposedly very moderate centrist progressives, made, and continue to make all sorts of myths justifying and rationalizing the murder, revealing their intent to do it all over again.

Myth:  The Czar was brutal and oppressive, but the soldiers refused to fire on the revolting masses, so he was overthrown, and thus the communists, representing the masses to power.

Reality: The Czar was a cucked progressive.  He had Lenin and Stalin in his hands, guilty of all sorts of crimes that gave him grounds for execution or indefinite imprisonment, but let them off because letists are holier than thou.  There were no revolting masses, just a series of coups made in the name of the revolting masses, and such riots and looting as occurred, occurred Ferguson style – the police were ordered to stand back and let the mobs loot stuff and smash stuff.

The February revolution was no revolution – rather the elite allowed the mobs to knock over a few breweries, to provide an excuse for them seizing power from the Czar while he was away at the front.

The communists did not overthrow the Czar.  The Kadets overthrew the Czar.  Then Kerensky overthrew the Kadets with a policy of no enemies to the left, no friends to the right, which meant he disarmed the military officers, and armed the communists.  Then the communists overthrew Kerensky.  The leftism of the Czar led to his overthrow by the even lefter Kadets, the indecisive leftism of the Kadets led to their overthrow by Kerensky, and the radical leftism of Kerensky led to his overthrow by the even lefter communists, who then murdered the Czar, and millions of peasants, until the madness ended with them murdering each other.

What happened to Russia was leftism leading to more leftism.

Progressives agree that serfdom was absolutely horrid, and perhaps it was.  If it was horrid, the solution should have been to free the serfs and leave the land with the lords.  Or perhaps give some of the land to the more competent, successful, and wealthy serfs.  But this solution was considered unthinkably horrible and inconceivably reactionary, which implicitly acknowledged that most serfs were not ready to run their own lives.  What progressives wanted was the serfs freed with the land.  But quite obviously, most serfs were incompetent to operate a small farm.  So progressives wanted them to operate the land collectively.  But if one man trying to run a small farm is hard, one hundred men trying to run a large farm is considerably harder.

So, Alexander the liberator freed them with collective ownership of the land.  Which was predictably a disaster.  And there was thereafter a succession of ever lefter government measures to try to deal with the problem, each of which made the problem worse.  Russian agriculture still has not recovered.  By freeing the serfs and giving them the land collectively, but not individually, Alexander the liberator set in motion a slide ever leftwards that continued steadily all the way to the liquidation of the kulaks.

The liberation of the serfs with collective ownership of the land created a crisis, for which the solution was always more leftism, which led to more crisis. This created an expectation that the way to power was to be lefter than thou. The Czar’s generals and bureaucrats outflanked him on the left. Kerensky’s socialists outflanked them on the left, and the Communists outflanked Kerensky on the left. Then the communists proceeded to outflank each other, till Stalin put a stop to that.

If at any time any of Alexander the Liberator’s successors had been so horribly repressive as to demonstrate that lefter than thou was a seriously bad career move, as Stalin belatedly demonstrated, the slide leftwards would have halted and stayed halted. But instead the Czars allowed to the progressives to guilt them into doing whatever the progs demanded, which merely excited progressive bloodlust.

Technological decline

Friday, July 6th, 2018

As societies enter a dark age, military technologies are apt to be the last to be lost, and in the recovery from a dark age, the first to advance.

In dark ages, art declines, great buildings decline, ordinary people’s living standards decline, people harrow the ground with stones tied to bits of wood instead of iron plows, but weapons technology usually goes right on improving.

Our art is crap, we no longer build Cathedrals, but until recently, weapons were good and improving.

The 2018 Nuclear Posture Review has recently appeared, revealing that we have lost all nuclear military technology:

U.S. production of tritium, a critical strategic material for nuclear weapons, is now insufficient to meet the forthcoming U.S. nuclear force sustainment demands, or to hedge against unforeseen developments. Programs are planned, but not yet fully funded, to ease these critical production shortfalls.

This is euphemistic.  Recent attempts to produce tritium were fully funded, but failed, which failure resulted in new plans for new attempts to produce tritium, which have not yet been fully funded.

I have regularly remarked on America’s inability to produce tritium.  All existing nuclear weapons require tritium to juice their detonation, and without tritium, would produce a low yield explosion.  Tritium decays over time, and so fresh tritium continually needs to be added.  The US is out of tritium, has repeatedly attempted to produce more, and repeatedly failed.

Fully funding the Obamacare website did not produce an Obamacare website, and I doubt that fully funding proposed new tritium production facilities will produce tritium.

In the absence of sustained support for these programs, including a marked increase in the planned production of tritium in the next few years, our nuclear capabilities will inevitably atrophy and degrade below requirements.

The U.S. is also unable to produce or process a number of other critical materials, including lithium and enriched uranium. For instance, the United States largely relies on dismantling retired warheads to recover lithium to sustain and produce deployable warheads. This may be inadequate to support the nuclear force replacement program and any supplements to it.

So, our enrichment facilities have ceased to function across the board.

And, recapping my previous remarks on technological decline:

Fighter planes are getting slower, and can no longer fly as high or as far.

We need Pu238 for nuclear batteries. The 2006 New Horizons mission to Pluto and the Kuiper belt was launched without enough Pu238 to keep all its equipment live during the Pluto flyby, and without enough Pu238 to do its Kuiper belt mission,

Existing nuclear weapons have not received maintenance for a very long time, and it is unclear whether there is anyone with the relevant skills to perform maintenance and adequately test them for readiness.

Fusion weapons require lithium enriched in lithium six to juice them.  Enriched lithium does not decay, but the US has lost the capability to make more of it.

Attempts to build new nuclear reactors in the US keep running into indefinite delays.  To make significant amounts of plutonium 239  will need new reactors.

Plutonium 239 is the stuff used in nuclear weapons, plutonium 238 the stuff used in nuclear batteries, plutonium 240 is the stuff you don’t want because it spontaneously fissions.  You want to produce your plutonium using enriched uranium in a sodium cooled fast neutron reactor because then you get considerably more of the plutonium you want, and considerably less of the plutonium you do not want.  The US used to build fast neutron reactors, but all recent attempts to build a fast neutron reactor in the west have failed, and all existing fast neutron reactors in the West have stopped working.  The only existing fast neutron reactors that are working well enough to produce significant amounts of plutonium are in Russia and China.

If all existing fast neutron reactors have ceased to work, if all our existing isotopic enrichment plants have ceased to work, should we really believe that our existing nuclear weapons will work?

Money, “full funding”, is unlikely to be the issue.  Obama threw stupendous amounts of money at the Obamacare website, and the site did not come up.   It only came up when a conspicuously undiverse team of white and east Asian heterosexual males led by white heterosexual males took over the job.

Nuclear weapons were produced by western civilization, and since 1972 the core project of our universities has been “Western Civilization has got to go.”

Science requires a level of trust and trustworthiness that a diverse society is incapable of, and a level of truth speaking that a progressive post christian society is incapable of.


When the west started losing wars

Friday, July 6th, 2018

The Victorian theory that women were angels, therefore no coercion was needed against naturally saintly women, only against demonic males who make saintly women do bad things, led to an intolerable flood of bastards and women giving birth in the rain in dark alleys, which in turn led to “Oliver Twist” and “Les Miserables”, which brought us the welfare state, and the replacement of the nuclear family with child support.  As people in the eighteenth century were aware, people need marriage in order to reproduce, and marriage needs coercion to make it stick, and the primary victims of this coercion need to be women, otherwise they will have sex with one man, then sex with another, making it difficult and unpleasant to father children.

Similarly, “White Man’s Burden”, and “la haute mission civilisatrice” was the death of colonialism.

It led the British general who was invading Afghanistan to believe he was doing Afghans a favor, and if he was sufficiently nice to them they would throw flowers at his troops.  So he forbade his troops to take necessary measures for self defense, and, as a result, he and his troops died.

The white man’s burden was profoundly counterproductive to social cohesion, because it led to them sacrificing near (British officers and troops) for far (afghan officers and troops)

If it is a burden, then you proceed to conspicuously display your holiness by burden carrying – which is apt to mean making your troops carry burdens.

Before the British intervened in Afghanistan, the most recent news that most people had of it was records of Alexander’s army passing through two millenia ago.

The empire of the East India company was expanding, and the empire of the Russias was expanding, and it was inevitable that the two would meet. And so it came to pass that the Kings of Afghanistan encountered both, and played each against the other.

When the British became aware of Afghanistan, they interpreted its inhabitants as predominantly white or whitish – as descendants of Alexander’s troops and camp followers and/or descendants of Jews converted to Islam at swordpoint.

Afghanistan was, and arguably still is, an elective monarchy, and the fractious electors tended to fight each other and elect weak kings who could scarcely control their followers, and so it has been ever since Alexander’s troops lost Alexander.

Mister Mountstuart Elphinstone, in his account of is mission to Kabul in 1809, says he once urged upon a very intelligent old man of the tribe of Meankheile, the superiority of a quiet life under a powerful monarch, over the state of chaotic anarchy that so frequently prevailed.

The reply was “We are content with alarms, we are content with discord, we are content with blood, but we will never be content with a master!”

As Machiavelli observed, such places are easy to conquer, but hard to hold, and so it proved.

To conquer and hold such places, one must massacre, castrate, or enslave all of the ruling elite that seems fractious, which is pretty much all of them, and replace them with your own people, speaking your own language, and practicing your own customs, as the Normans did in England, and the French did in Algeria, starting 1830. The British of 1840, however, had no stomach for French methods, and were already starting to fall short of the population growth necessary for such methods.

So what the British could have done is paid the occasional visit to kill any king that they found obnoxious, kill his friends, family, his children, and leading supporters, install a replacement king, and leave. The replacement king would have found his throne shaky, because Afghan Kings have usually found their thrones shaky, but the British did not need to view that as their problem, knowing the solution to that problem to be drastic and extreme. If the throne has been shaky for two thousand years, it is apt to be difficult to stop it from rocking.

After a long period of disorderly violence, where brother savagely tortured brother to death, and all sorts of utterly horrifying crimes were committed, King Dost Mahomed Khan took power in Kabul in 1826, and proceeded to rule well, creating order, peace, and prosperity, and receiving near universal support from the fractious and quarreling clans of Afghanistan.

The only tax under his rule was a tariff of one fortieth on goods entering and leaving the country. This and the Jizya poll tax are the only taxes allowed by the Koran, at least as Islamic law is interpreted in this rebellious country which has historically been disinclined to pay taxes, and because this tax was actually paid, it brought him unprecedented revenues. On paying this tax “the merchant may travel without guard or protection from one border to the other, an unheard of circumstance”

However he did not rule Herat, which was controlled by one of his enemies, who been King before and had ambitions to be King again. He therefore offered Herat to the Shah of Persia in return for the Shah’s support against another of his enemies, Runjeet Singh. He was probably scarcely aware that Runjeet Singh was allied to the British, and the Shah was allied to the Tsar of all the Russias.

Notice that this deal was remarkably tight fisted, as was infamously typical of deals made by Dost Mahomed Khan. He would give the Persians that which he did not possess, in return for them taking care of one of his enemies and helping him against another.

The British East India Company, however, saw this as Afghanistan moving into Russian empire, though I am pretty sure that neither the Shah of Persia nor the King of Aghanistan thought they were part of anyone’s empire.

So Russia and the East India Company sent ambassadors to the King of Afghanistan, who held a bidding contest asking which of them could best protect him against Runjeet Singh. He then duplicitously accepted both bids from both empires, which was a little too clever by half, though absolutely typical of the deals he made with his neighbors.

Dost Mahomed Khan was a very clever king, but double crossing the East India Company was never very clever at all. No one ever got ahead double crossing the East India Company. It is like borrowing money from the Mafia and forgetting to pay them back.

Russia and England then agreed to not get overly agitated over the doings of unreliable and duplicitous proxies that they could scarcely control – which agreement the East India Company took as permission to hold a gun to the head of the Shah of Persia. The East India company seized control of the Persian Gulf, an implicit threat to invade if the Shah intervened in Afghanistan to protect Dost Mahomed Khan. It then let Runjeet Singh off the leash, and promised to support his invasion of Afghanistan.

So far, so sane. Someone double crosses you, then you make an horrible example of him, and no one will do it again. Then get out, and whoever rules in Afghanistan, if anyone does manage to rule, will refrain from pissing you off a second time.

The British decided to give a large part of Afghanistan to Runjeet Singh, and install Shah Shoudjah-ool-Moolk, a Kinglet with somewhat plausible pretensions to the Afghan throne, in place of Dost Mahomet Khan.

Up to this point everything the East India Company is doing is sane, honorable, competent, just, and wonderfully eighteenth century.

Unfortunately, it is the nineteenth century. And the nineteenth century is when the rot set in.

His Majesty Shah Shoudjah-ool-Moolk will enter Afghanistan, surrounded by his own troops, and will be supported against foreign interference, and factious opposition, by the British Army. The Governor-general confidently hopes, that the Shah will be speedily replaced on his throne by his own subjects and adherents, and that the independence and integrity of Afghanistan established, the British army will be withdrawn. The Governor-general has been led to these acts by the duty which is imposed upon him, of providing for the security of the possessions of the British crown, but he rejoices, that, in the discharge of this duty, he will be enabled to assist in restoring the union and prosperity of the Afghan people.

So: The English tell themselves and each other: We not smacking Afghans against a wall to teach them not to play games with the East India Company. On the contrary, we are doing them a favor. A really big favor. Because we love everyone. We even love total strangers in far away places very different from ourselves. We are defending the independence of Afghanistan by removing the strongest King it has had in centuries and installing our puppet, and defending its integrity by arranging for invasion, conquest, rape and pillage by its ancient enemies the Sikhs, in particular Runjeet Singh. Because we love far away strangers who speak a language different from our own and live in places we cannot find on the map. We just love them to pieces. And when we invade, we will doubtless be greeted by people throwing flowers at us.

You might ask who would believe such guff? Obviously not the Afghans, who are being smacked against the wall. Obviously not the Russians. Obviously not the Persians. Obviously not the British troops who are apt to notice they are not being pelted with flowers.

The answer is, the commanding officer believed this guff. And not long thereafter, he and his troops died of it, the first great defeat of British colonialism. And, of course, the same causes are today leading to our current defeat in Afghanistan.

The commanding officer of the British expedition made a long series of horrifyingly evil and stupid decisions, which decisions only made sense if he was doing the Afghans a big favor, if the Afghans were likely to appreciate the big favor he was doing them, and his troops were being pelted with flowers, or Afghans were likely to start pelting them with flowers real soon now. The East India company was no stranger to evil acts, being in the business of piracy, brigandry, conquest, and extortion, but people tend to forgive evil acts that lead to success, prosperity, good roads, safe roads, and strong government. These evil acts, the evil acts committed by the British expedition to Afghanistan, are long remembered because they led to failure, defeat, lawlessness, disorder, and weak government.

As a result, he, his men, and their camp followers, were all killed.

Progressives tend to judge people by their good intentions, and the intentions of the British Empire in invading Afghanistan were absolutely wonderful, but the man who does evil because insane is a worse problem than the man who does evil because he expects to profit. The rational profit seeking evildoer, you can pay off, or deter. You can surrender on terms that will probaby not be too bad. The irrational evildoer just has to be killed. Before 1840, the East India Company was sometimes deterred, frequently paid off, and frequently accepted surrender on reasonable terms. In 1841, just had to be killed.

This illustrates the importance of the rectification of names, of formalism. If you lie to yourself, you are deceived. I have been reading the Clinton emails, and one of the most striking features is that Clinton and company are deluded and deceived by self flattering lies, that despite having vast spy networks in far flung places, are seriously out of contact with reality, as their circle tells each other what they want to hear.

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.  If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle. Hillary and her advisers, and therefore I suppose the entire state department, know neither the enemy nor themselves. They dream grandiose delusions, in which they are the terribly smart and virtuous people, rather than a drunken old sow surrounded by lying flatterers.

The East India Company did not realize that it was about to be recast, or was recasting itself, from being a for profit company, empowered to make war and engage in acts of piracy and extortion for private profit, to being the British government’s instrument of holy do gooding, benevolently carrying the white man’s burden for the benefit of a bunch of strangely ungrateful foreigners. In place of a ruthless mafia with uniformed soldiers, the East India Company was about to become an NGO with uniformed nursemaids.

Yet strangely, the greater the good intentions, the more they were to be resented.</sarcasm> The East India Company seems to have been more popular when they were pirates and bandits than when they were pious do gooders. No one seemed to appreciate the East India Company doing good to them at gunpoint. The ridiculous part of the white man’s burden was the striking ingratitude of the supposed beneficiaries, resembling the striking ingratitude of Middle Easterner’s towards meddling by presidents Bush and Obama in the Middle East. Those @!^&$ Middle Easterners just somehow do not know what is good for them, unlike far away strangers, who, being terribly clever, know exactly what is good for the Middle East without ever having lived there.

If an elite attempt to rule distant places, they will rule them very badly, unless some of the children of the elite move to those places, and stay there to rule them.  Carpetbaggers who come and go tend to leave horror and devastation in their wake, as for example the looting of Haiti by do gooder ngos after the earthquake.   If you are not going to stick around, the incentive is to take everything and smash everything, which is what happened to Haiti when the US State Department ngos got coercive quasi governmental power.  Haitians wound up eating dirt, sleeping in the rain, and got cholera.  So, not going to rule well, unless you have a fertile elite, which needs more governmental and quasi governmental jobs for its excessively numerous offspring.   In which case good rule will naturally follow from the desire of that elite to make a nice place for themselves and their descendants.  This is necessarily going to be rough on the existing local elite, but  an ideology of doing good to far away strangers does not result in doing good to far away strangers, but at best to famine, destruction of property, and disease, as recently demonstrated in Haiti.

English pay the Jizya

Sunday, June 17th, 2018

The Daily Mail Online tells us
“Less than one in twenty street robberies and burglaries solved”

Naturally I thought the unmentionable planet Jupiter must be in sight, and suspected that these mysteriously unsolvable crimes might correlate with that.

“Rushcliffe in Nottinghamshire had the lowest rate of solved crime in 2017, while the most crimes were solved in Uttlesford in Essex”

So, I looked up Google Earth, for the main town of Rushcliffe, which is West Bridgford.

And then I looked up the main town of of Uttlesford, which is Saffron Walden, which has only two mosques. (Which is nonetheless two more than the number of churches)

Surprise surprise, white working class:

Muslim predation on infidels is legal, white self defense illegal.

[Hat tip a certain reactionary Jew in high places whose name cannot be spoken]

Naturally the Daily Mail proposes more money for policing, but more money for police will merely make white self defense even more illegal than it already is.

The drift to civil war

Tuesday, May 29th, 2018

Whichever outcome happens, Trump in prison or the swamp in prison, as leftism keeps getting lefter the stakes just keep getting higher, and the processes for seizing the stakes are losing legitimacy. When things are falling apart, the first guy to escalate tends to win, and the first guy to escalate to naked violence is likely to win.

The deep state, the swamp, figured that they would illegally hound the Trump campaign, and something was bound to turn up that would retroactively justify the investigation, and they could jail Trump for some crime or other.

Because, hey if any of them were investigated, not that that could ever happen, something would turn up.

Well, they have been at it for two years, and nothing has turned up. What the press keeps announcing as another triumph is that in the course of casting the net wider and wider, they find some technicality or other with which to charge someone or other somehow connected to Trump, and hope to “turn him” – get him to rat on Trump, to reveal all these terrible Trump crimes that must surely exist. Every leftist assumes, sees as quite obvious, that if anyone connected to Trump is brought under pressure, he is likely to have some Trump crimes to report. Its inevitable and obvious – because everyone has some crimes, right?

But after two years of this, of people supposedly being about to “turn” as a result of being charged with crimes increasingly technical, boring, irrelevant, and legalistic, it is increasingly obvious that these Trump crimes do not exist, and all this illegal use of police and investigatory power is going to get them in trouble. If anyone was going to “turn”, he would have turned by now. If anything was going to turn up, would have turned up by now.

They are investigating people and charging people to pressure them to rat on Trump, to reveal the terrible Trump crimes that surely must exist. No ratting happens, indicating no Trump crimes exist.

The uniform and confident expectation that if you put the heat on some random Trump associate, he will have the goods on Trump, reveals that if you were to put the heat on some random swamp dweller, he would have the goods on some more senior swamp dweller. (more…)

John Bolton wants war

Tuesday, May 1st, 2018

John Bolton’s plan for denuclearizing Korea:

“We have very much in mind the Libya model from 2003, 2004,”

Hmm, how did that work out of Gaddaffi?

In 2011 February Gaddafi gives up weapons of mass destruction. Then Obama, or rather a presidency that Obama was unable to control, immediately launched a color revolution, which failed horribly. The State Department then had Gaddafi murdered in a US air strike in on the 2011 October 20th. But the State Department is still unable to make its color revolution stick. When the State Department attempt at color revolution in Libya continues to fall flat on its face despite the murder of Gaddafi, the US proceeds to bomb everything of value and murder everyone important. The US was able to destroy the existing regime, but was unable to impose the regime it wanted, so just kept bombing, killing, and sponsoring various armed groups to kill and destroy. After three years of savage destruction, remaining State Department assets fled the chaos that they had created in 2015. Since then Libya has been one of the very few genuinely independent states, a defeat and retreat by the US empire resembling in many ways the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan and retreat from Afghanistan. The government of Libya is, of course, not recognized by “the international community”, and is necessarily somewhat furtive and semi hidden in order to avoid drone strikes, but nonetheless, since the State Department retreat in 2015, has been able to maintain a reasonable level of order, security, and safety. (more…)

Operation Sovereign Borders

Friday, April 6th, 2018

American judges have been expanding the category asylumrefugee to open borders to the world, preparatory for rapid race replacement and white erasure in the US. Illegal immigration is now legal in the US, indeed a fundamental human right (unlike freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to keep and bear arms) as it has been for some time in Germany and Sweden.

In response to this, Trump has promised to use the the military to defend our borders against invaders. The world is shocked by this terrible violation of human rights. The military should only be used for good nice kindly humanitarian purposes, such as bombing civilians in Libya to punish them for their disinclination to support a Cathedral sponsored color revolution.

To use the military for selfish purposes, such as keeping hostile and predatory outsiders on the outside, is a clear violation of fundamental human rights recently discovered in the emanation of the penumbra of the umbra of the great and glorious US constitution. The US military should only be used for good and unselfish purposes, such as teaching Afghan schoolgirls how to put a condom on a banana and blowing up people who are insufficiently grateful for the benefits of freedom and democracy bestowed upon them.

If Trump keeps this promise, chances are he is also going to have some wall in time for the mid term elections. If he does not, he will not.

Keeping either or both of these promises is likely to lead to confrontation with the judges, as it violates the inalienable human right of South America and Africa to move to America to live on crime, welfare, and voting Democrat.  (more…)